<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>This paper begins with an assessment of the origin of the term ‘deep disagreement’ to reflect fundamental differences in argument procedure and suggests an alternative explanation of such stalemates that may apply in many cases and does lead to a possible resolution strategy, through discussion of the ordering of certain principles, rather than their acceptance or rejection. Similarities are then drawn with disputes which are supported by conflicting expert opinions and I lay out the advantages of seeking to resolve them through the construction of an epistemic hierarchy. It is noted that while such hierarchies may not be easy to build, and are certainly not fool-proof, their importance is in the provision of a mechanism by which an apparently stalled debate can move forward, leading to a better understanding of the conflicting positions, if not full resolution.</p></abstract>

This paper begins with an assessment of the origin of the term ‘deep disagreement’ to reflect fundamental differences in argument procedure and suggests an alternative explanation of such stalemates that may apply in many cases and does lead to a possible resolution strategy, through discussion of the ordering of certain principles, rather than their acceptance or rejection. Similarities are then drawn with disputes which are supported by conflicting expert opinions and I lay out the advantages of seeking to resolve them through the construction of an epistemic hierarchy. It is noted that while such hierarchies may not be easy to build, and are certainly not fool-proof, their importance is in the provision of a mechanism by which an apparently stalled debate can move forward, leading to a better understanding of the conflicting positions, if not full resolution.

Overcoming Disagreement Through Ordering: Building an Epistemic Hierarchy

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

{"article-title":"Overcoming Disagreement Through Ordering: Building an Epistemic Hierarchy"}

This paper begins with an assessment of the origin of the term ‘deep disagreement’ to reflect fundamental differences in argument procedure and suggests an...

Overcoming Disagreement Through Ordering: Building an Epistemic Hierarchy

Publié en ligne: 06 déc. 2018

Pages: 77 - 91

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0029

Mots clés
deep disagreement, Fogelin, epistemic hierarchy, appeal to expert opinion

© 2018 Martin Hinton, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Overcoming Disagreement Through Ordering: Building an Epistemic Hierarchy

Publié en ligne: 06 déc. 2018

Pages: 77 - 91

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0029

Mots clésdeep disagreement, Fogelin, epistemic hierarchy, appeal to expert opinion

© 2018 Martin Hinton, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Mots clés
deep disagreement, Fogelin, epistemic hierarchy, appeal to expert opinion